|
R v Patea-Glendinning [2006] DCR 505 (HC)
Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ
Name: R v Patea-Glendinning
Reported: [2006] DCR 505
File number: CRI 2005-483-17
Court: High Court
Location: Wanganui
Date: 16, 29 March 2005
Judge: Miller J
Charge: Aggravated Robbery
CYPFA: s208, s283(o)
Key title: Sentencing in the adult Courts - Application of Youth Court principles; Conviction and transfer to the District Court for sentence; Orders – Conviction and transfer to the District Court for sentence
LexisNexis Case Summary:
Criminal law – Youth justice – Appeal by Crown against sentence for aggravated robbery – Statutory sentencing jurisdiction following transfer of defendant to District Court for sentencing – Relevance of youth following transfer of defendant to District Court for sentencing – Youth as mitigating factor – Starting point for sentence – Whether sentence imposed by District Court manifestly inadequate – Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 173A – Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 2, 5, 6, 208, 272, 282, 283(o), 284, 290(2), 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 – Interpretation Act 1999, s 5 – Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7, 8(h), 9(2), 16, 18, 104.
Sentencing – Young offender – Starting point for sentence – Whether sentence imposed by District Court manifestly inadequate – Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7, 8(h), 9(2), 16, 18, 104.
The respondent, Patea-Glendinning, was sentenced to 300 hours’ community work, reparation, and two years’ supervision with special conditions for the aggravated robbery of a dairy in Wanganui in February 2005 when he was 16 years old. The Crown appealed that sentence, maintaining that, having transferred the respondent to the District Court for sentencing under s 283(o) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (the CYPF Act), the Judge was required to impose a sentence of not less than 18 months imprisonment under the Sentencing Act 2002.
Held (dismissing the appeal)
1 The CYPF Act ceased to apply once the qualifying young person, in this case the respondent, was transferred to the District Court for sentence under s 283(o) of the Act (see paras [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]).
X v Police (High Court, Auckland CRI 2004-404-374, 11 February 2005, Heath and Courtney JJ) not followed.
2 Youth was properly to be considered a mitigating factor, and the allowance made as such a factor could be a substantial one, depending of course on age and the characteristics of the individual offender and the circumstances of the offence. In this case, therefore, a sentencing starting point of around four years was required (see paras [59], [60]).
R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170 (CA) followed.
3 The respondent received a substantial sentence of community work and two years’ supervision with onerous conditions. That could not be seen as a light sentence or discounted as a real alternative to a short term of imprisonment with leave to seek home detention. When allowance was made for the need to preserve the flexibility of the sentencing Judge to take a rehabilitative approach when dealing with young offenders, it could not be said that the sentence was manifestly inadequate (see para [64]).
Other cases mentioned in judgment
R v Baylis (High Court, New Plymouth T031204, 3 April 2003, Salmon J).
R v C (Court of Appeal, CA 332/95, 28 September 1995).
R v Crime Appeal (Court of Appeal, CA 212/91, 17 October 1991).
R v Cuckow (Court of Appeal, CA 312/91, 17 December 1991).
R v De Havilland (1983) 5 Cr App R 109.
R v Donaldson (1997) 14 CRNZ 537.
McCollum v Police (High Court, Whangarei AP 22/03, 18 August 2003, Priestley J).
R v Mahini (1998) 15 CRNZ 428.
R v P (Court of Appeal, CA 59/03, 18 September 2003).
R v S (Court of Appeal, CA 284/02, 31 October 2002).
R v Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526.
S v R (Court of Appeal, CA 284/02, 31 October 2002).
R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372.
R v Thompson-Harvey (2002) 20 CRNZ 1051.
R v Titoko (Court of Appeal, CA 144/96, 11 September 1996).
W v Registrar of Tokoroa Youth Court (1999) 18 FRNZ 433.
Appeal
The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed upon the respondent, Ira Patea-Glendinning, for aggravated robbery.
Top | Home | Publications | Ministry of Justice | Courts | Judiciary | Fines | Fees | Practice Notes | Vacancies | Tribunals | Media Releases | About Judgments | Addresses & Contacts | Disclaimer | newzealand.govt.nz
